12 Ch. 12 Crimes against Property and Vice Crimes

Ch. 12

Crimes Against Property and Vice Crimes

Introduction

Crimes against property are a substantial percentage of activity surrounding the Criminal Justice System. Fear of victimization in property crimes is significant, from people purses and wallets, to vehicles, homes, bicycles, personal technology and numerous other items. In this chapter we will examine the dimensions of property crimes, examining various facts and statistics about varying types of property crimes.

Figure 8.1 Photo of socialite Paris Hilton in Monaco 2019.

Between October 2008 and August 2009, a group of seven teenagers committed a notorious amount of property crime, so much so that it was turned into two movies and a docu-series. This group of friends from Calabasas, California broke into the homes of several celebrities in the Hollywood Hills and took about $3 million in clothing, jewelry, and cash. If there was a celebrity whose style they liked, they decided to “go shopping” in that person’s home and take whatever they wanted. The home addresses were all available publicly on celebrity-tracking websites. Also, each of the celebrities posted their public event schedules on social media, so the group knew when a home would most likely be empty.

They hit socialite Paris Hilton’s home at least five times (figure 8.1). The first time they went there, the front door was unlocked, and they also found a key under the welcome mat making the following visits even easier. The burglaries were not reported to police (maybe Hilton did not notice the missing items) until almost $2 million worth of clothing, jewelry, and cash was taken in a single break-in.

The group also burglarized actor Rachel Bilson at least three times, taking up to $300,000 worth of property. They also stole from the homes of actor Orlando Bloom and model Miranda Kerr, actors Brian Austin Green and Megan Fox, and actor Lindsay Lohan. They had plans to hit over 50 celebrity homes. Once caught, all members of The Bling Ring were charged with residential burglary among other charges.

In this chapter, we will talk about the property crime of burglary, along with other property crimes and public order crimes. However, you can already note an important difference in the crimes we are discussing here compared to those in the last chapter – during each of these crimes, the owner of the property was not present.

Licenses and Attributions for Chapter Overview and Learning Objectives

“Chapter Overview and Learning Objectives” by Jennifer Moreno is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Figure 8.1 Photo of socialite Paris Hilton in Monaco 2019 by Gil Zetbase, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Previous/next navigation

Previous: Chapter 8: Property Crimes and Crimes Against Public Order

Next: 8.2 Property and Public Order Crimes

“A healthy community is not crime-free, but it manages and contains crime, adjusting to it and preventing it from gaining the upper hand.”

Marcus Felson, criminologist and originator of routine activities theory

Property Crimes and Public Order Crimes

In this chapter, we will again go over broad categories of crimes – property crimes and public order crimes. Crimes against people have very clear victims and it can be easy to trace the impact of those violent offenses. Also, while anyone can commit crimes against people, it is most often not a random act by a stranger. There is commonly some level of relationship between the offender and the victim in murder, assault, rape, and robbery. Of course, this is not always the case, but it is more common than when we talk about property crimes and, especially, public order crimes. Property crimes and public order crimes are also considered smaller or less harmful than violent crimes, which means they also have lesser punishments compared to crimes against people. These crimes are still a violation, though, and the law requires that the person who commits them be held accountable. The punishments can range from simple fines all the way up to time in prison. Let’s look at the different types of property crimes first, then we will talk about crimes against the public order.

Licenses and Attributions for Property and Public Order Crimes

“Property and Public Order Crimes” by Jennifer Moreno is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

A property crime is interfering with someone’s property in the form of damage or destruction. It can also include taking, using, or disrupting the owner’s use of that property in any way. Property is typically defined as real property or personal property. Real property is fixed property like land or real estate and is often legally represented through the use of titles or deeds. Personal property is a broad category, consisting of anything movable a person owns (laptop, cell phone, vehicle, pencil, pets) or intellectual property (ideas or other intangible things created by a person).

Ownership is a vital component of property crimes. Determining who has the right of ownership, meaning who would be considered the victim if something is taken or damaged, requires investigating proof of ownership. Ownership can be established very clearly through receipts, deeds, or titles showing proof of purchase (or some other legal documents, too), but also sometimes a little less clearly through location or evidence of use. For example, someone may be able to show a photograph of an item in their home as proof of ownership.

In addition to ownership, the value of property is important. The item’s worth helps law enforcement and the courts decide how bad of a crime this was and how big of a victim the owner really is. Basically, if someone steals your bicycle then you are considered less victimized than if someone stole your car. The more money something stolen or damaged is worth, the more serious the level of property crime.

Mens Rea in Property Crimes

In order for someone to be charged with a property crime, mens rea must be established. It must be shown somehow that the offender had some awareness that they were messing with property that did not belong to them. This awareness is what demonstrates both the intent and the conscious decision to impose their control over something they knew they do not own.

As a reminder, The Model Penal Code (the guide used to define laws) divides criminal intent into four “states of mind”: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently. The law in property crimes, such as theft, requires evidence of specific intent, or a mens rea of purposely or knowingly performing the criminal action. Higher-order mental states like purposely and knowingly show volition, which means that a person made a choice.

The more clearly it can be shown that stealing was not just borrowing (it was meant to be permanent) and that the damage was total (it cannot be fixed), the more serious the property crime is considered under the law. In other words, the offender must clearly intend the criminal act of stealing and must also intend to never return the stolen property (Itin v. Ungar, 2000). Proving this aspect of the crime takes away any possible defense that they were just “borrowing” the property and intended to return it after they were done using it. After all, borrowing is not a crime. It may just be inconsiderate and that is not illegal.

Actus Reus in Property Crimes

Because property crimes cover many types of “interference” with property, the criminal actions that constitute a property crime are also varied. In general, the most recognizable type of property crimes are those that fall under the umbrella of “theft.” Those crimes require that property be taken or stolen. However, other actions that count as theft could also include keeping someone’s property from them (withholding it), moving someone else’s property without permission, receiving property that you have no right to have (accepting stolen property), or selling property you have no right to sell (selling stolen property). In this example, all of these would be the actus reus of theft. More examples of the actus reus of property crimes are entering a property without permission, remaining on property without permission, damaging property, or destroying property.

Licenses and Attributions for Property Crimes

“Property Crimes” by Jennifer Moreno is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Public Order Crimes

Crimes against the public order are tricky. These are all about laws that have been created to punish anyone who does not live or behave in the way those who created the laws want them to live or behave. Public order crimes are those designed to directly address violations of what has been determined to be “acceptable social conduct” and “community behavior standards.” Public order crimes are often controversial and highly debated because they criminalize actions that not all people agree are the only acceptable ways to behave in society. The goal of public order crimes is to keep people from disrupting smooth social operation and peace. Lawmakers have determined that certain behaviors are harmful and detrimental to the good of society, making those behaviors worthy of being restricted.

Particular to public order crimes is the concept of a victimless crime.This is a crime that involves only the offender, who is technically only hurting themselves. Because participation in a victimless crime is a choice and lacks involvement of anyone outside oneself, there is no victim to protect and no harm to prevent. However, others argue that the public order laws are necessary to represent society’s obligation to uphold moral standards.

Public order crimes rest on the fine line between individual and constitutional rights, and the government’s interest in making sure no one becomes overzealous or dangerous in exercising those rights. The careful enforcement of public order crimes is balancing the rights of citizens to engage in behaviors that are legal and constitutionally afforded, but in a way that does not sacrifice safety and security of society at large.

Because public order laws often criminalize things like obscene gestures, threats, and fighting words, they can be challenged regarding constitutional rights under the First Amendment. The amendment protects free speech, specifically, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” (U.S. Const. amend. I). However, some public order crimes do exactly that, so how is that allowed? Well, the catch is that not all speech is protected under the First Amendment. It is constitutional and completely legal to regulate (make laws regarding) obscenity, true threats, and fighting words. You can probably imagine how different people would disagree over what is considered obscene or inappropriate and worthy of being controlled by the law. For this reason, any law or act criminalizing speech or expression is thoroughly scrutinized, must be very carefully written, and has to be supported by an unarguable public interest.

A controversial example of this very issue came up in 2022 when Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law what is now being referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. The new law states, “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards” (HB 1557, 2022).

While the debate over whether this is actually in the public interest rages on, court battles are addressing the language. The law is written in such a way that it is broad, vague, and confusing. For example, what if a child in a first-grade classroom comes from a family in which both parents are of the same sex? Is that child not allowed to discuss their own home and family life? Are only children of heterosexual couples allowed to talk about their families? What if a book has a character in it who is a member of the LGBTQ+ community? Must the book be banned, or parts of the book skipped or not discussed? Also, are only teachers in heterosexual couples allowed to display a family photograph on their desks? This law is a good example of how public order crimes are often controversial and hotly debated because they criminalize actions that not all people in society agree are the only acceptable ways to behave or speak or live.

Another example of public order crimes walking the fine line of trying to avoid violating anyone’s First Amendment rights but also trying to maintain public order is the protests that took place in Portland, Oregon during the summer of 2020.There were large demonstrations in downtown Portland over police violence in response to the death of George Floyd at the hands of police officer Derek Chauvin, another in a long line of Black men killed by White police officers.

The First Amendment protects free speech, but also, “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Const. amend. I). Protesting, holding up signs with messages, marching through the streets, calling out specific chants, and proclaiming outrage are all perfectly legal. However, while almost all of the protestors were demonstrating peacefully and safely, a small portion chose to either take advantage of the situation (police being busy with the protests and distracted) or chose to act out their frustrations through damaging behaviors. Those who engaged in graffiti, vandalism, looting, or threatening language committed public order and property crimes.

Mens Rea in Public Order Crimes

Determining mens rea in public order crimes relies on a concept called the reasonable person standard. The reasonable person standard is based on a hypothetical guess as to what the average person would do in public or think about a particular behavior in public. If a reasonable person would be offended by a behavior, or would refrain from behaving a certain way knowing the impact the behavior would have on the people around them, then the offensive behaviors could be considered a public order crime. In this way, the mens rea of an offender can be evaluated based on what a reasonable person would have been thinking, in addition to any literal evidence as to what the offender was actually thinking (like something they said out loud or posted on social media). Typically, public order crimes require that a person specifically intended to cause a disruption, did something knowing that it could cause a disruption, or was aware of the disruptive nature of their actions.

Actus Reus in Public Order Crimes

Offensive conduct is a category of behaviors that a “reasonable person” would deem disruptive or dangerous to society and is used to determine actus reus in public order crimes. Public order laws are specific in defining actions that constitute violations so that only conduct that is of compelling government interest is regulated, or at least that’s the goal. We will talk about the different types of public order crimes and which behaviors can be considered criminal in the next section.

Licenses and Attributions for Public Order Crimes

“Public Order Crimes” by Jennifer Moreno is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

As the goal is to maintain a peaceful society, public order crimes address areas of disorderly conduct, unlawful assembly or riot, actions related to homelessness, all areas of prostitution, and drug and alcohol related offenses.

Disorderly Conduct

Disorderly conduct, also called disturbing the peace, is a very broad, very vague catch-all bucket for any behaviors that can be considered offensive in an attempt to address most disruptive annoyances and dangers a person may experience. Disorderly conduct laws list particular actions but are often written in a vague manner regarding the concept of what a “reasonable person” would do or would tolerate.

The actus reus of disorderly conduct laws include disruptions like causing excessive noise, engaging in alarming or threatening behavior, obstructing traffic, creating hazardous conditions, or engaging in fighting. The mens rea of disorderly conduct laws rests heavily on what is going on in a particular situation. For example, when the criminal act is a loud and unreasonable noise, the quality of the noise is judged in the setting where the noise occurred. Music heard outside a bar downtown late at night is to be expected. However, music heard from someone’s backyard when they are having a small party may be considered unreasonable noise if the rest of the neighborhood is typically a very quiet area. Considering the context in order to figure out the mens rea, one has to determine the intent of the person committing the offense.

The mens rea element required for disorderly conduct in many jurisdictions is to purposely cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or the reckless intent to cause a risk thereof. Is a person hosting a small party in the backyard of their home in a quiet neighborhood playing music too loudly with the intention of inconveniencing, annoying, or alarming their neighbors? If they are, that is criminal. If they are not, it is simply inconsiderate.

Unlawful Assembly and Riot

Unlawful assembly as a public order crime requires elements like assembling or meeting of a group with the specific intent to purposely commit a breach of the peace, some other unlawful act, or riot. This is different from a constitutionally protected protest or demonstration because the behaviors involved are not peaceful and could instead be harmful.

When a crowd is asked by law enforcement to leave from a location because they are behaving in a way that is likely to cause substantial harm or serious annoyance, their refusal to obey is the crime of failure to disperse. Refusing to obey law enforcement in this manner can also be called interfering with a peace officer.

When the group behavior escalates to a dangerous level, it is considered a riot. A riot is characterized by the amplified energy and risk inherent in the gathering of a group behaving in a violent, aggressive, or out-of-control manner. A riot can be the result of a lawful or unlawful assembly that escalates, or can occur spontaneously without any planning. For group behavior to be considered a riot, it must include the use of force or violence, which are not constitutionally protected behaviors of assembly or expression.

The attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021 is an extreme example of a riot. In protest to the results of the election, over 2,000 individuals stormed the building, vandalized and looted offices, and made threats to government employees. Their actions were violent as they assaulted several members of the Capitol Police force and news reporters. Five people died as a result of the riot, 138 police officers were injured, four responding officers died by suicide within seven months of the attack, and over $2.7 million in damage was done. Investigations and charges related to this riot continue with over 900 rioters facing criminal charges as of late 2022.

Vagrancy and Loitering

People experiencing homelessness are often targets of crimes against the public order. Some argue it is public perception of the potential for increased criminal activity and diminished health and safety of an area that drives vagrancy and loitering laws to try to keep homeless groups out of certain neighborhoods. Vagrancy is homelessness and is demonstrated by a person who appears to be transient (moving from place to place) without a clear way to support themselves (unemployed) (figure 8.3).

Figure 8.3 Photograph of Portland street showing tents used by people experiencing homelessness

Historically, vagrancy laws were broadly written to allow law enforcement considerable discretion in arresting the unemployed, gamblers, drug addicts, alcoholics, and those who frequented houses of prostitution or other locations of “ill repute.” The claim is that vagrancy laws could incapacitate individuals before they engaged in criminal activity, to ensure the safety and security of any given area.

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Florida vagrancy statute in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville. The Court said the law, which prohibited night walking, living off one’s spouse, and frequenting bars or liquor stores was invalid because it was so vague and it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment protects citizens from any laws that deprive them from “life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV). After the decision in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972), many states changed their vagrancy laws to focus more on specific behaviors that could be criminalized, like loitering.

Loitering is technically just standing around without a purpose. Under the law, however, loitering is defined by behaviors (the actus reus) of wandering around or remaining in one area with the specific intent to gamble, beg, or engage in prostitution. Loitering is considered especially bad if it is near a school or a transportation facility.

Many jurisdictions also criminalize panhandlingor begging. Laws around panhandling run the risk of criminalizing speech because they are saying someone cannot ask another person for money. For this reason, lawmakers have to be careful not to violate anyone’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. The laws are generally written to expressly prohibit aggressive conduct or conduct that blocks public access or the normal flow of traffic.

One relatively new approach to preventing individuals experiencing homelessness from congregating in cities, affecting the quality of life of residents, the prosperity of businesses, and the experience of tourists are sit-lie laws. Sit-lie laws prohibit sitting or lying on public streets and sidewalks and, as a result, force individuals to move about. This prevents anyone from blocking access to businesses, roadways, or transportation facilities. Basically, the old vagrancy laws that prohibited wandering around looking unemployed, and the loitering laws prohibiting hanging out somewhere without a purpose, can now prevent sitting or lying down instead. These laws are being challenged in the courts already because they target the poor, addicted, and unemployed.

Seattle, Washington, was the first city in the United States to enact a sit-lie ordinance in 1993 that prohibited sitting or lying on a public sidewalk between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. in Seattle’s downtown area. The ordinance was attacked, but ultimately upheld in 1996.

In 2021, Los Angeles, California enacted a more comprehensive ordinance that banned sitting, lying, or sleeping on public streets and sidewalks at all times and in all places within Los Angeles city limits. Section 41.18 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) prohibits sitting, lying, or sleeping:

Anywhere that impedes any passage protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act such as ramps on and off sidewalks,

Within ten feet of a driveway or loading dock,

Within five feet of a building entrance or exit,

Anywhere that impedes the right of way for any activity for which the City has issued a permit,

Within 500 feet of a property designated for a sensitive use (such as public park or library),

Within 500 feet of a designated overpass, underpass, freeway ramp, tunnel, bridge, pedestrian bridge, subway, wash, spreading ground, or active railway,

Within 1,000 feet of a homeless shelter or support center,

Within 500 feet of a school or day care center, and

Anywhere else the City has posted a sign prohibiting sitting, sleeping, or lying down.

This ordinance was originally struck down in 2006 because it was determined to be unconstitutional. However, it is now back and even more thorough. The court’s decision in 2006 is the same as the argument against the law now – that individuals experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles far outnumber the amount of space available in homeless shelters, so the law punishes people for conduct that is involuntary. Although many claim this law constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, especially because no alternatives are provided to help people experiencing homelessness in the area, it remains active as of late 2022.

Vice Crimes: Crimes Involving Prostitution

Prostitution is engaging in sexual activity in return for payment. Every state except Nevada criminalizes prostitution. In Nevada, legal prostitution must follow specific guidelines and can occur only in a licensed house of prostitution. However, street prostitution, called pandering, is illegal even in Nevada.

Theactus reuselement required for prostitution varies, depending on the jurisdiction. In many states, prostitution is offering, agreeing to, or engaging in sexual conduct for money, property, or anything of value. Agreeing and engaging in are both considered prostitution, meaning the prostitute and the prostitute’s client could be prosecuted for and convicted of prostitution in most jurisdictions. Patronizing a prostitute is the act of buying sexual conduct, or being the customer. This part of the transaction has not always been punished. Although illegal, most customers, or “johns” were typically allowed to leave while the prostitute alone was arrested and punished. This started to change in the 1990s when jurisdictions saw that addressing only one side of the equation was not working, and concerns were raised about human trafficking.

Laws also criminalize pimping, which is the organizing and facilitating of prostitution. A pimp (or madam, if female) usually also collects part of the money earned by the prostitutes they manage. As understanding grows about human trafficking for sex, enforcement of all elements of prostitution (including those that happen over the internet) are increasingly monitored and prosecuted.

The mens rea element required for prostitution is eitherstrict liability (the act itself is enough without determining any mental state) or the specific intent to engage in prostitution. The fact that the criminal action occurred is enough to demonstrate that the crime was committed and what someone was thinking or what they thought they were doing is irrelevant.

Vice Crimes: Drug and Alcohol Crimes

All states and the federal government criminalize the manufacture or cultivation, possession, sale, and use of certain drugs. Many modern statutes focus on rehabilitation for nonviolent drug offenders, rather than incarceration, because this has proven effective in reducing reoffending and freeing up space in jails and prisons for offenders who pose a greater security risk to society. In addition, marijuana has been legalized by many states for medicinal or recreational purposes, but is still illegal at the federal level.

From Author Jeff Bry: “A significant issue with using jail and prison (specifically of people who sell drugs, or use certain types of drugs) is it does not reduce demand and/or need for the drugs. Also as the risk to drug dealers of incarceration increases, or the amount of specific drugs are reduced from the streets, this only tends to increase the cost (price) of the drug. As the cost of the drug increases, the amount of crime people need to commit to gain the drug also increases. The literature demonstrates prevention, early intervention and diversion programs to be more beneficial in reducing drug use.”

Federal criminal statutes targeting illegal drugs are part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, commonly known as the Controlled Substances Act, which was drafted by a commission striving for uniformity in state and federal laws. For the purpose of drug crimes, the states and the federal government categorize illegal drugs in drug “schedules.” The schedules generally focus on the harmful or addictive qualities of the drug, with Schedule I drugs being the most harmful or addictive. The remaining schedules reflect less harmful or addictive drugs, including drugs that are legal with a prescription. Any drugs identified in these government lists are called scheduled drugs.

The government cannot criminalize the status of being a drug addict but there is no constitutional barrier to punishing criminal acts involving controlled substances. In most jurisdictions, the manufacture (creation) and possession (ownership) of scheduled drugs is illegal. Possession is typically gradedbased on the quantity possessed, the drug’s classification in the schedule, and whether or not the possession is for the purpose of distribution, with the penalties ranging from a misdemeanor for simple possession to a serious felony for possession with intent to sell.

The sale (exchanging drugs for money), distribution (giving drugs to others to sell), or trafficking (moving drugs across state lines) are all public order crimes. These criminal offenses are  generally considered felonies, with more severe penalties for drugs in a higher schedule, the sale of larger quantities, a sale by an adult to a minor, or a sale near school grounds. Scheduled drug use, also “called being under the influence of a controlled substance,” is typically a misdemeanor with more severe penalties for habitual offenders.

Licenses and Attributions for Types of Public Order Crimes

“Types of Public Order Crimes” by Jennifer Moreno is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Figure 8.3 Photograph of Portland street showing tents used by people experiencing homelessness Loren Kerns from Tigard, Oregon, USA, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

One can illegally interfere with or damage someone else’s property in the manner of theft, burglary, criminal damage, or arson. Each of those are described here along with their unique mens rea and actus reus.

Theft

Theft is commonly thought of as “stealing.” The words “larceny” and “theft” are often used interchangeably, as well as sometimes “robbery” or “burglary,” though these are variations of the same type of crime. Robbery refers to theft from an actual person while using a real or perceived threat. In this chapter, we will look at the types of theft that do not involve the presence of a victim.

Theft is a broad term for a property crime that covers several different ways of messing with (interfering with) property belonging to someone else that ruins their ability to use it themselves. Theft includes stealing but also any other deprivation of propertyfrom an owner. This deprivation can be withholding, moving, or receiving of stolen property.

The mens rea for theft laws is the intent to deprive an owner of their property. The actus reus for theft laws is stealing property or services. For example, stealing a car counts, but so does using someone else’s login for a streaming service.

Physically taking an item is considered the crime of general theft. The actual act of taking an item has two main components. First, the person committing the theft must gain control over the item. Then, they must move the item. This is called asportation. Because theft requires physically taking something, it usually only applies to personal property and services, but not always. Real property (like a house) is really hard to steal and move somewhere else, so cases involving real property are rare.

Theft is a broad crime that can have many other variations in the law that address specific types:

Shoplifting (stealing from a retail store)

Embezzlement (a white-collar crime)

Motor vehicle theft (stealing a vehicle)

Burglary (theft from a residence, or even overstaying at a hotel or rental property)

Theft of services (stealing utilities or using streaming subscriptions without paying for them)

Robbery (forcible theft from a person)

Theft laws and levels are based on the value of the property or service stolen. It is probably obvious to say higher-value thefts are more serious and lower-value thefts are less serious. The seriousness determines the punishment for the crime.

Grand theft is the biggest, highest level and is reserved for the theft of property with substantial value. Petty theft is the smallest, lowest level and is reserved for the theft of property with very low value.

Year	Total Larceny-Theft Incidents	Rate per 100,000
2020	4,606,324	1,398.0
2010	6,159,795	1,993.0
2000	7,056,545	2,550.1
1990	7,945,670	3,139.0
1980	8,086,155	3,563.5
1970	4,653,200	2,288.8
1960	1,646,380	909.2
1950	843,900	566.8
1930	431,943	346.7

Shoplifting

Shoplifting is a crime of significant concern for retailers, from the perspective of shoppers but also the people they employ. Mary Owen Cameron has conducted substantial research regarding shoplifting, including a comprehensive examination of shoplifting behavior including categorizing offenders into typesets. Cameron (1964) in her work “The Booster and the Snitch”, found two categories of shoplifters. The ”booster” is a professional shoplifter, making a substantial amount of their living shoplifting. The “snitch” is the occasional amateur shoplifter. Key findings of Cameron’s (1964) pivotal study include:

Motivations: Cameron identified that while boosters steal for financial gain, snitches often shoplift due to psychological or social reasons, such as peer pressure, a desire for excitement, or an impulsive response to temptation.

Demographics: Snitches are typically more diverse in age and socioeconomic background, whereas boosters often belong to organized groups and have a history of criminal behavior.

Patterns: Shoplifting incidents are influenced by factors such as store layout, security measures, and social environments. Amateur shoplifters often steal items of lesser value compared to professional shoplifters.

According to Cameron (1964), shoplifters are different based upon their background and demographics. “Boosters” are more likely to steal for financial gain, “snitches” are more likely to shoplift for excitement or based upon impulse and/or temptation. “Snitches” are more diverse in age and background, “boosters” tend to have a history of criminal behavior and may use shoplifting to supplement their income. Cameron (1964) also notes shoplifters and their behaviors are influenced by various factors; including the store layout, environmental issues and security. “Boosters” generally steal more expensive items, “snitches” steal less expensive items.

David Farrington (1973) also found interesting evidence regarding shoplifting. Farrington (1973) found two key elements, opportunity and situational factors tend to effect shoplifting. Farrington (1973) discusses situational factors, such as opportunity based upon low security and/or easy access to goods. These factors are critical in effecting the decision to steal. Farrington (1973) also discusses demographic characteristics, finding (similar to Cameron) shoplifters are diverse in terms of backgrounds, but does note that many are adolescents. Farrington (1973) also found evidence that if the economy improves, shoplifting tends to decrease. If the economy struggles, shoplifting tends to increase. Social attitudes towards shoplifting and store security measures are also important variables in shoplifting.

Burglary

Burglary, like that discussed in the Chapter Overview, is often associated with theft because it is thought to involve the act of stealing. This is only partially true. Burglary is interfering with the use of real property. But remember, interfering can take many forms which includes theft but also includes remaining on property without permission, using property without permission, or entering property without permission. The differences are small but important.

The actus reus required for burglary varies, but typically includes the concept of unlawful or uninvited entry. Basically, it is illegal to enter any structure or vehicle at any time of day if you are not supposed to be in there. Some jurisdictions include “remaining” as a factor of the entry. That means “breaking and entering” is one thing, and “breaking, entering, and staying for a bit” is even worse. When we talk about criminal breaking-in, it is generally any physical force used to enter the burglarized area—even pushing open a closed door. (Commonwealth v. Hallums, 2004). Entry is a partial or complete intrusion of either the offender, the offender’s body part, or a tool or instrument (People v. Nible, 1988). In some jurisdictions, the entry must be unauthorized, (State v. Hall, 2000), while in others, it could be lawful (People v. Nunley, 1985). The mens rea element required for burglary is typically knowingly entering with the specific intent to commit a crime.

Burglary is put into degrees (first- through fourth-degree). The level is determined based on the seriousness of the actus reus in combination with the mens rea. For example, prosecutors will look at the use or possession of a weapon, the entry into a residence, dwelling, or building where people are present, the commission of burglary at nighttime, or the infliction of injury or death. Second- and third-degree burglary are usually felonies, although less serious than first-degree burglary as with other types of crimes.

2020: Burglary incidents totaled 1,035,314 with a rate of 314.2 per 100,000 population.

2010: There were 2,159,878 burglary incidents, resulting in a rate of 702.2 per 100,000 population.

2000: Burglary incidents were slightly lower at 2,050,992, with a rate of 728.8 per 100,000 population.

1990: The number of burglary incidents peaked at 3,073,200, with a high rate of 1,231.1 per 100,000 population.

1980: There were 3,795,200 burglary incidents, with a rate of 1,684.1 per 100,000 population.

1970: Burglary incidents totaled 2,222,140, resulting in a rate of 1,098.8 per 100,000 population.

1950: There were 454,400 burglary incidents, with a rate of 299.2 per 100,000 population.

1930: The earliest year on record shows 255,748 burglary incidents, with a rate of 204.7 per 100,000 population.

Source Uniform Crime Reports (www.fbi.com)

These statistics illustrate the changing trends in burglary incidents over the decades, reflecting various social, economic, and law enforcement factors influencing crime rates.

Criminal Damage

Criminal damage means it is a crime to damage or destroy property or tamper with property. It also includes using deception or a threat that leads to a loss of property. Criminal damage is sometimes also called “vandalism” or “criminal mischief” in some jurisdictions.

The actus reus required for criminal damage is the physical interference with property: damaging, destroying, interfering with, or tampering. Criminal damage typically requires committing actions against the property of another (or property that is government owned) without permission.

The mens rea for criminal damage varies, depending on the jurisdiction and the amount of harm caused. The criminal intent could be purposely, knowingly, reckless, or negligent. It is generally a less serious offense either because the defendant inflicts damage to property in a “safe” or nonviolent manner or because the criminal intent is less vicious and directed toward an inanimate object instead of a person.

Some examples of criminal damage could be shattering someone’s car windshield with a golf club out of anger, throwing a brick through someone’s living room window to scare them, stabbing a tire with a screwdriver, hitting a mailbox with a baseball bat, or throwing someone’s cell phone. In each of these examples, the person doing the damage is doing so on purpose. These are not accidents. Accidental damage to property is not a crime.

Criminal damage is one variation of property crime that addresses a very specific type of interference with property. Graffiti is another type of criminal damage to property that is very specifically, applying graffiti to something. Any kind of tagging with spray paint, markers, or any other tool is considered criminal damage (figure 8.2).

Figure 8.2 Photograph of graffiti in Portland, Oregon.

The different levels or degrees of criminal damage are decided by the extent of the property damage and the state of mind of the offender. There is such a wide range in this category of crimes that criminal damage can be a felony, misdemeanor, petty misdemeanor, or violation, all depending on the extent of the damage or the criminal intent.

Arson

Another type of criminal property damage is arson. Arson is the intentional or malicious (intending to do harm) burning of property with fire or explosion. Laws in most jurisdictions criminalize burning almost anything, including the offender’s own property in many instances. However, for the burning of one’s own property to count as actual arson, the offender must have acted with the specific intent or purpose to defraud (such as burning down your own home and trying to make it look like an accident so you can get the insurance money).

The actus reus required for arson is typically setting fire to or burning real or personal property. This could include buildings, structures, land, and vehicles. The mens rea required for arson in many jurisdictions is intentionally burning or damaging property (doing it on purpose). First-degree arson may focus on arson of a place where people live and second-degree arson focuses more on arson of other property.

Other factors that are considered when deciding the level or degree of arson are if anyone was injured or killed, the extent of the property damage, and the value of the property that was burned. For arson, even smoke damage without burning or charring can be enough to lead to an arson charge.

Licenses and Attributions for Types of Property Crimes

“Types of Property Crimes” by Jennifer Moreno is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Figure 8.2 Photo of graffiti in Portland, Oregon Loren Kerns from Tigard, Oregon, USA, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Previous/next navigation

Previous: 8.3 Property Crimes

Next: 8.5 Public Order Crimes

License

 Introduction to Criminology Copyright © by Taryn VanderPyl. All Rights Reserved.

Conclusions

Property crimes and public order crimes cover most of the offenses that are not directly against another person. These are most often lower level crimes with smaller punishments than the crimes against people discussed in Chapter 7 and the larger crimes we will be discussing in Chapters 9 and 10. However, the crimes covered in this chapter are also the ones that occur most often compared to the larger crimes. Everyone is more likely to be witness to or victimized by smaller offenses like stolen property, vandalism, or a public disturbance. In fact, you may already have personal experience with one of the offenses in this chapter.

Application Exercises

Learn about the marijuana laws in different states and discuss their value. https://www.cnet.com/news/politics/marijuana-laws-by-state-is-weed-legal-where-you-live/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20National%20Conference,New%20Jersey%2C%20New%20Mexico%2C%20New

Review the State of Homelessness: 2022 Edition report from the National Alliance to End Homlessness and click on different states on the interactive map to learn more about homelessness in the United States. https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness/

Discussion Questions

What is the difference between burglary and robbery?

How are vandalism and graffiti different? What are other examples of similar crimes?

What might the mens rea and actus reus be in various property crimes and crimes against public order?

How are constitutional rights protected in laws regarding actions that are considered public order crimes?

What is the “reasonable person” standard for public order crimes and how is that determined?

What is the difference between a protest and a riot? Can one lead to the other? Why might that happen?

What are arguments in favor or against laws regarding behaviors related to homelessness? Are these laws effective? If so, in what ways?

What are the various crimes linked to the act of prostitution? Why do you think “johns” were not prosecuted until into the 1990s?

What are arguments you have heard for legalizing some scheduled drugs?

Key Terms

Arson

Asportation

Burglary

Criminal damage

Disorderly conduct

Loitering

Offensive conduct

Property crime

Prostitution

Public order crimes

Reasonable person standard

Right of ownership

Riot

Scheduled drugs

Sit-lie laws

Theft

Unlawful assembly

Vagrancy

Victimless crime

Volition

Summary

A property crime is interfering with someone’s property in the form of damage or destruction. It can also include taking, using, or disrupting the owner’s use of that property in any way. Determining who has the right of ownership requires investigating proof of ownership. In addition to ownership, the value of property is important. Theft is a broad term for a property crime that covers several different ways of messing with (interfering with) property belonging to someone else that ruins their ability to use it themselves. Burglary is entering any structure or vehicle at any time of day if you are not supposed to be in there and are there to commit a crime. Criminal damage means it is a crime to damage or destroy property or tamper with property. It also includes using deception or a threat that leads to a loss of property. Criminal damage is sometimes also called “vandalism” or “criminal mischief” in some jurisdictions. Arson is the intentional or malicious (intending to do harm) burning of property with fire or explosion.

Public order crimes are those designed to directly address violations of what has been determined to be “acceptable social conduct” and “community behavior standards.” Particular to public order crimes is the concept of a victimless crime, which is a crime that involves only the offender, who is technically only hurting themselves. Public order crimes rest on the fine line between individual and constitutional rights. The reasonable person standard is based on a hypothetical guess as to what the average person would do in public or think about a particular behavior in public. If a reasonable person would be offended by a behavior or would refrain from behaving a certain way knowing the impact the behavior would have on the people around them, then the offensive behaviors could be considered a public order crime. As the goal is to maintain a peaceful society, public order crimes address areas of disorderly conduct, unlawful assembly or riot, actions related to homelessness, all areas of prostitution, and drug and alcohol related offenses.

Vagrancy is homelessness and is demonstrated by a person who appears to be transient (moving from place to place) without a clear way to support themselves (unemployed). Loitering is technically just standing around without a purpose. Sit-lie laws prohibit sitting or lying on public streets and sidewalks and, as a result, force individuals to move about. Prostitution is engaging in sexual activity in return for payment. All states and the federal government criminalize the manufacture or cultivation, possession, sale, and use of certain drugs. The sale (exchanging drugs for money), distribution (giving drugs to others to sell), or trafficking (moving drugs across state lines) are all public order crimes. Scheduled drug use, also “called being under the influence of a controlled substance,” is typically a misdemeanor with more severe penalties for habitual offenders.

Resources

The National Human Trafficking Hotline website provides statistics, resources, and help at https://humantraffickinghotline.org/

Find resources and help for homelessness in your community at https://www.hud.gov/findshelter

Licenses and Attributions for Conclusion

“Conclusion” by Jennifer Moreno is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Cameron, M. O. (1964). The Booster and the Snitch: Department Store Shoplifting. Free Press of Glencoe.

Farrington, D. P. (1973). Shoplifting: An Occasional Crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1(4), 397-418.